Our thanks to John for this, a Daily Mail article revealing publicly for the first time what we knew to be true, that Wednesday’s arrests cited by Notts Police on their Facebook page related to a boy circumcised by Dr Balvinder Mehat, allegedly without the mother’s approval. From the article:
Campaigners say it is believed to be the first time a police force has treated ‘non-therapeutic’ circumcision as GBH.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I read the article cursorily this morning, on line. What occurred to me was that the offence seems to be not the act of mutilation on a helpless baby boy but the failure to obtain the mother’s permission to do it. The real significance of the case therefore, if so, is that the police action is not on behalf of the boy but in support of and to protect his mother’s seemingly absolute right to scar him for life on a whim; a right she enjoys independently of the father’s wishes. Such is the grip of the matriarchy.
LikeLike
Very good point, the article’s point is indeed weighted about the mother’s “right”. However the case is potentially important if it is a prosecution for grievous bodily harm as that would (I hope) establish that non therapeutic circumcision is a harm. I expect the cultural lobbies to be out in force because of the obvious implication.
Now of course those cultures are self declared “patriarchies” so one would expect feminists to weigh in on the side of the mother, if not the boy. However somehow I expect silence.
LikeLike
You are both right. It is only GBH because the mother says so. So this is at best a first step.
So what would be the next step? Will it take a grown man suing his mother for GBH from when he was a child? Is there something else that could be done?
LikeLike
Actually the “crime” would have been committed by the person doing the circumcision. If someone child or adult is judged not to be able to understand. Then the “doer” needs to be clear that the decision was made in their best interest. It is a convention that a parent is likely to be able to do this, but as with cases involving Jehovah’s witnesses, parents do not have this as an absolute “right”.
LikeLike
So when is the NHS being charged and sued?
LikeLike
I think a successful prosecution for GBH would be vey significant because it would establish that circumcision is a grevious injury and not a benefit.
I am not a lawyer but this is quite different from prosecution for just assault, and significant harm must be shown.
Once it is legally established that circumcision is significant harm then the issue of parental consent is at least technically irrelevant. A parent has no more right to inflict harm on a child than anyone else.
LikeLike
That is my understanding. The law on consent is rarely invoked but the recent case of the boy on life support because of the prospect of treatment in America shows the complexity. There is no absolute “right” of parents to give consent, it is simply that parents, or a parent, are presumed to act in the best interests of their child. This is contested by clinicians, for instances if parent/s oppose treatment of a child for illnesses (quite a few time over blood transfusions or transplants) or by parents or other family members.
If the “treatment” is shown to be harmful and unnecessary and therefore an assault that could have a much wider significance, particularly as it isn’t the case that it was done by someone who isn’t a clinician. In sense this would make MGM the same as FGM, not a treatment at all; but a harm committed solely for cultural preferences.
This case seems to have run for some time and I expect the Police had hoped they’d kicked it into the “long grass” by making it a medical matter referring to the BMA.
LikeLike
The law could not be clearer. MGM is illegal under OAPA 1861. Parents – or indeed anyone – cannot give consent for ABH or GBH to be inflicted on a person. There are no exemptions from UK law for religious or cultural considerations. Why do people struggle to understand these basics?
LikeLike
I suspect they do understand and that is why “there is insufficient evidence” . Unlike FGM which is widely condemned outside some pretty small communities from Africa, establishing case law for MGM puts the authorities on a collision course with some numerous and powerful religious and cultural communities in this country. I cannot imagine at least some in the CPS will not understand the significance if the Human Rights Lawyer is proven correct. Without a successful criminal prosecution establishing a precedent then the Police will be able to fob the complainant off with their interpretation.
LikeLike
Then you,I and everyone here know that there will be huge campaign by various activists groups religious and non religious to dismiss this case. Wouldn’t surprise me if they attempt to use the ECHR..
there will be accusations of antisemitism and Islamophobia.
what will be interesting is that the number of feminists who allied themselves with Muslim groups( in spite of the contradictions) speaking up on this.
will they support the mother( as per feminism) or will they condemn her( they do have a history of turning on women) and argue for their allies in the Muslim community.
“A parent has no more right to inflict harm on a child than anyone else.”
if that was established then the family courts would find themselves under scrutiny for enabling such behavior for one gender and not the other.
LikeLike
The significance of the GBH reference is huge. If such a prosecution succeeds, then pro cutters will be put into a position where they have to argue that GBH on a child suddenly stops being GBH if a parent consents to it. The issue of the lack of maternal consent in this case is merely a stepping-stone towards an inevitable conclusion. And the Barrister knows this. She is very clever.
LikeLike